We argue that the commitment to science-society integration and Responsible Research and Innovation in past European framework programmes has already made considerable progress in better aligning research and innovation with European societies. The framework programmes have important socialisation effects and recent research point to positive trends across key areas of Responsible Research and Innovation within academic organisations. What appears to be a step away from the concerted efforts to facilitate European citizens’ meaningful contribution to research and innovation in the upcoming
For decades the idea that scientists, policy makers and industry know best in research and innovation has been convincingly challenged. The concept of Responsible Research and Innovation [RRI] combines various strands of critique and takes up the idea that research and innovation need to be democratized and must engage with the public in order to serve the public. The proposed future EU research funding framework programme, Horizon Europe, excludes a specific program line on research in RRI. We propose a number of steps the European Parliament should take to institutionalize RRI in Horizon
With “Horizon Europe”, the European Commission sets out the framework for research and innovation in Europe over the next seven years. The proposal outlines the contours of an innovative science policy that is open and responsive to societal needs, and where societal actors jointly undertake missions to discover sustainable solutions to present-day and future challenges. In our commentary we point to a number of modifications needed to strengthen the cross-cutting implementation of activities for societal engagement and responsible research and innovation.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Bjørn BedstedLise BitschLars KlüverRasmus Øjvind NielsenMarie Louise Jørgensen
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is gaining momentum worldwide and is envisaged as a needed tool to properly govern controversial innovative technology (i.e. genome editing, AI). Europe is considered a leader in fostering such approach, notably through its institutionalization. Even so, the future of European Research and Innovation (R&I) seems to be designed without a central role for RRI. After long effort and so much public EU money to support projects to ground RRI principles and practices in key contexts for the flourishing of science and technology in Europe, such as the
At the beginning of May, 2018, the European Commission has presented its proposal for Horizon Europe, the framework programme which defines priorities and budget distribution for the future of European Research and Innovation (2021–2027). The announcement has raised concerns within the community of stakeholders engaged in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), a democratization process leading to connecting science to the values and interests of European citizens by mean of participatory processes. Through this flash commentary we aim at providing a wide range of arguments, as well as
Since the early 1990s, there has been a considerable increase in the number of scientific studies on science communication, and this increase has been accompanied by a diversification of the research field. This study focuses on one aspect of this development: it analyses how citation network structures within the field have developed over time, and whether science communication research shows signs of becoming a research field or a discipline in its own right. Employing a co-citation analysis of scholarly publications published between 1996 and 2015, it assesses to what extent a coherent
The Science Communication Challenge by Gitte Meyer, a Danish science communication scholar with a previous career in science journalism, is a collection of essays on the interrelationships among science, society and politics in modern knowledge societies. The book is valuable as it contributes to the important debate on the “whys” (instead of the “hows”) of science communication and its (long term) impact on science and society. However, it does not present explicit solutions to the questions in focus but rather reads as a large patchwork of ideas, theories and concepts which require readers
This paper focusses on the sense making and use of science by environmental activists. It is based on the assumption that activists — without being scientists or professional science communicators — take up a central role in the environmental discourse concerning the translation of scientific findings and their public dissemination. It is thus asked how environmental activists evaluate the relevance of science for their work, which structures and processes they apply to make sense of science, and how they use science related information to make their voices heard. This paper presents data from
We review how the Wellcome Collection exhibition ‘Teeth’ enacts meanings from an educational anthropology and Science and Technology Studies perspective. The exhibition tells the history of dental science. It starts with accounts of the painful procedures and social inequalities of early oral healthcare. As it moves towards the present day it shows improved scientific knowledge, tools and public health promotion, and closes with current sophisticated technologies and practices. However it underrepresents contemporary social inequalities. We conclude that science communication exhibition
The aim of this review of the literature is to identify what we already know about the engagement of children aged under eight in makerspaces. Given the limited literature in the area, the review takes a broader look at makerspaces for older children where relevant. This is not a systematic review; its aim is not to offer an exhaustive account of all of the research conducted in the area. Rather, this narrative review provides an introduction to key aspects of research on makerspaces and enables the identification of themes dominant in the field, and those areas where more research is needed
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Jackie MarshKristiina KumpulainenBobby NishaAnca VelicuAlicia Blum-RossDavid HyattSvanborg JónsdóttirRachael LevySabine LittleGeorge MarusteruMargrét Elísabet ÓlafsdóttirKjetil SandvikFiona ScottKlaus ThestrupHans Christian ArnsethKristín DýrfjörðAlfredo JornetSkúlína Hlíf KjartansdóttirKate PahlSvava PétursdóttirGísli ThorsteinssonUniversity of Sheffield
This research investigates how eight undergraduate African American women in science, math, and engineering (SME) majors accessed cultural capital and informal science learning opportunities from preschool to college. It uses the multiple case study methodological approach and cultural capital as frameworks to better understand the participants’ opportunities to engage in informal science learning or free-choice learning. The article demonstrates that African American women have access to cultural capital and informal science learning inside and outside of home and school environments in P-16
This document represents the story of Native Universe: Indigenous Voice in Science Museums and how it has unfolded at the project level, the three case study museum sites, and through partnerships between tribal communities and the three science museums. Modeled on the project itself, our research and evaluation team brings together Indigenous and conventional, western evaluation and research practices, through a collaborative partnership between the Lifelong Learning Group, based at COSI’s Center for Research and Evaluation (Columbus, OH) and Native Pathways (Laguna, NM). The results of